Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response. Although progress has been made, it is still very much the case that children from poorer families are less likely to be able to volunteer to do internships or a gap year working in the community before going on to further study. They lack either the contacts, the confidence or, in many cases, the finance to do so. Will the Minister tell the House what more is being done to ensure that the opportunity to volunteer is made available to everybody?

Kevin Brennan: Yes. I recently met TimeBank and I commend my hon. Friend for his work. Volunteering is extremely important to getting people back into work, in terms of both aspiration and skills. Volunteering can form an important part of getting people back into work quickly and maintaining momentum in social mobility. I speak from personal experience: when I left university in 1982, at a time of very high unemployment, the first thing that I did was volunteer in what would now be called a social enterprise. I can confirm that doing so helped me to get the confidence and skills to get into paid employment quickly.

Kevin Brennan: I would recommend volunteering as an option for people leaving university who are not immediately moving into work. As I have said, the investment that the Government are making in v, which has already been matched with more than £33 million from the private sector, with more to come, I understand, in an announcement in December, will play a big role in getting young people into those volunteering opportunities. As I have said, v has already identified more than 750,000 opportunities for young people.

Kevin Brennan: I meet a wide range of voluntary organisations in my capacity as Minister for the Third Sector. I meet many excellent organisations who work with and on behalf of disabled people with a range of impairments. For example, just last week I met John Knight of Leonard Cheshire Disability to discuss issues related to disabled people.

Francis Maude: The Cabinet Secretary's report on data handling and security, which was published back in June, admitted that urgent action was needed to improve data security across the Government. Three years earlier, back in 2005, the Walport report, which came from the Government's own council on science and technology, had already recommended a series of changes to Whitehall practice in order to protect people's personal data. Why did the Government not even bother to respond to the report, let alone introduce any of its recommendations for action that were proposed three years ago?

Tom Watson: The right hon. Gentleman and I have rehearsed this argument over a number of months. The Government have put in place a series of strong measures to tighten down on data loss, which I think compares very favourably to the private sector. We do penetration testing from user-friendly hackers; we restrict access to removable electronic devices; and encryption is now the norm. I say again that, compared to the private sector, where a third of companies do not even know when data loss has happened and 60 per cent. refuse to tell their customers when there has been one, we are leading the way in the public sector. I know that one of the right hon. Gentleman's second jobs is as a banker—and banks are notorious for not revealing data losses—so I hope that he is not trying to set one rule for the public sector in his day job and another rule for the private sector in his secondary-income job.

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend is right. A number of agencies in the west midlands pioneer digital technologies. I commend to him the taskforce's Show Us a Better Way competition; he can type "Power of Information Taskforce" into any search engine to find the details.
	We believe that citizens can help the Government to design public services in a better way, and that co-production is the way forward. So far 450 people have entered the competition, and I am pleased to say that it has been a tremendous success. People as far away as the United States of America, India and Australia have followed our example.

James Gray: I am glad that the Government have a Power of Information Taskforce, but does the Minister agree that, in addition to power, great risks are involved in the holding of too much information electronically?
	In his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister said that he could not possibly announce the number of electronic security breaches, but then went on to say how proud he was of having been so open and transparent about the issue. Will he now undertake to inform the House every time there is a such a breach?

Gordon Brown: Let me say first—I believe that I speak for the whole country—that people are not only shocked and saddened but horrified and angered by what they have seen reported about what happened to an innocent 17-month-old boy. Every child is precious and every child is unique. Every child should have the benefit of support and protection both from their parents and from the authorities.
	The tragedy that has arisen from the violence and torture of a young child, where three have already been found guilty, raises serious questions that we have to address. The first set of questions is being addressed by Lord Laming, who is now looking at social service protection for children in every part of the country. He did the Victoria Climbié inquiry, and I believe that his recommendations were accepted by all parties in this House as being necessary. He will now look at what at what needs to be done.
	The second issue is in Haringey itself. There has been a serious case review, and the executive report already says that there have been failings and weaknesses in the system. The full report has now arrived with the Children's Secretary this morning. It is now for the Government to take action, and we will make a decision about what procedures and processes we will adopt in relation to Haringey. I believe that that is the right thing to do—both a national review, and local action.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister accused me of playing party politics. I did not mention who runs this council—and I did not mention who ran it when Victoria Climbié was tragically killed—and all I am asking is that the Prime Minister withdraws his accusation that I was in any way playing party politics, and not asking a perfectly reasonable question about a tragic case. I was putting to him a point made by his own Children's Secretary, so I ask the Prime Minister one more time: please just withdraw the accusation that I was playing party politics, because he knows I was not.

Nicholas Clegg: Week after week, I have called on the Prime Minister to cut taxes to give help to people on low and middle incomes, and he is now raising expectations that he will do just that, but why should anyone believe him? This is the Prime Minister who will not take responsibility for people losing their jobs, but did take credit for a bank rescue plan that he copied. This is the man who doubled the tax rate for 5 million of the poorest people in the country, and called it a tax cut. When it comes to taxes, he may pretend that he is Robin Hood, but he is no more than a petty pick-pocket. People do not need more cynical tinkering. What people need are tax cuts that are big, permanent and fair.

Gordon Brown: First, we have raised capital gains tax from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. Secondly, we have closed tax loopholes and continue to do so in every Budget. Where they are found, we take action when it is necessary. Thirdly, I come back to the point: what sort of stimulus to the economy would it be to cut £20 billion of public spending at the moment?

Gordon Brown: The High Court judgment is being examined by the Home Secretary. There are a number of cases in which people have applied to come into the United Kingdom. Those issues are being reviewed by the Home Secretary now. We have always been clear that where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families should be considered for settlement. However, in the light of the Court's ruling, we are now going to revise and publish new guidance in the near future. We pay tribute to the Gurkhas, who have fought for the United Kingdom for two centuries. They have serviced in conflicts throughout the world. They are operating in Iraq and continue to serve with great distinction in Afghanistan. Gurkhas who have served after 1997 have the ability to come into this country, and we are now reviewing the situation that has arisen because of the court judgment.

Charles Hendry: The Prime Minister will be aware that people applying for a Warm Front grant to replace a central heating boiler that is broken are now being told that, they will have to wait until March next year to have a new one installed, because of Government spending cuts. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable, bordering on the inhumane, that some of the most vulnerable people in our society should have to exist without heating this winter because they cannot get help from a Government scheme that is intended to help them?

Gordon Brown: I know about the interests that people have in the future of the Post Office credit account, but the right hon. Gentleman must also remember that we are putting £2 billion into the post office network over the next three years. I thought that he would be appreciative of the fact that given that we have given £2 billion in support in previous years, and are giving an extra £2 billion in the next three years, we are doing everything that we can to support the post office network.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman says that they have gone up, and that is the case. It is absolutely scandalous.
	In Germany, credit interest is regarded as an abuse if a company charges twice as high as the market interest rate. In Denmark, where there is no fixed rate, a lending company was taken to court for charging 33 per cent. APR, and it was forced to reduce the rate to 16 per cent.
	The time has come for the Bill. I welcome the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comments at Question Time that he would bring in such companies and call them to account. I think that he should do more. We need to introduce legislation to cap interest rate charges. We need to highlight the cost to individuals of taking out a loan with the sort of companies and shops that I mentioned. We need to promote credit unions and the benefit that they bring to local communities. It is sad to report that the Scottish National party Government have abolished the ring-fenced money that the Labour-led Administration introduced to promote and encourage credit unions. That is a disgrace.
	This place needs to tell the people of Britain that, during difficult times, we are on their side, and to send the message that, during the credit crunch, it is time to crunch the credit charges.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Devine, Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, John Bercow, Keith Hill, Mr. Brian Binley, Mark Durkan, Ms Katy Clark, Mr. Tom Clarke, John Barrett, Mr. David Anderson and Jon Cruddas.

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	(1) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Accountability, Regional Select Committees, Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees and Regional Grand Committees, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;
	(2) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to European Scrutiny (Standing Orders) and Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
	(3) the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the Speaker's Conference not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;
	such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	We have tried to introduce the measures as quickly as possible, partly because some of them lapse at the end of the Session, and therefore need to be renewed, and others lapse at the end of the year and also need to be renewed. We wanted to ensure that that could happen on one parliamentary day.
	We tabled the business motion a full week in advance of today's debate so that hon. Members could have full notice of the way in which we intended to proceed. That is earlier than we have sometimes been able to table business motions and I hope that it has assisted hon. Members.
	We are keen to allow time for votes, given that there may be several this afternoon, and it would wrong for them to eat into the time allowed for debate. Consequently, we have created three discrete debates of one and a half hours on regional accountability and the various measures that need to be rolled over into the next Session

Theresa May: I certainly agree with the Deputy Leader of the House that it is good that the Government gave rather longer notice of the business motion than they normally do, but that is about all I can agree with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) so clearly pointed out, it is no argument to use the economic crisis as an reason for restricting debate about whether we are going to spend up to £2 million of taxpayers' money on setting up eight more regional Select Committees and Grand Committees, or on whether the European Scrutiny Committee should continue to meet in private and not in public. We have not had a debate on the economic crisis in this country in Government time. I have consistently asked for such a debate, but the Government have consistently resisted that request.
	The motions are significant and need proper time for debate. On the first set on regional accountability, the Select Committee's report was pushed through only on the casting vote of the Leader of the House as Chairman, but we will have only one and a half hour's debate on those motions. The issue of European legislation is of great concern to many of our constituents. Some 50 per cent. of our legislation comes from Europe, but the question of how this Parliament should examine it will be debated for only one and a half hours. Frankly, the business motion is outrageous. Far more time is needed for both those issues.
	The Deputy Leader of the House also said that the Speaker's Conference is very significant. If so, why does he propose to restrict debate on it to one hour? The business motion is farcical, and I urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Simon Hughes: I share the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This motion is a complete abuse of the Government's powers. Since we came back in October, we have had days and days on which the House has finished early. We have had days and days on which we have had no votes at all, but we are still told that we do not have time to discuss amendments and new clauses to Bills, which were tabled by both Labour and Opposition Members.
	Now we come to this controversial motion—the Leader of the House knew that it was controversial from the moment that the Modernisation Committee discussed it. It was only because she was lucky enough to get a new member on to the Committee the night before the issue was discussed that she even had the opportunity to use her casting vote to get it through. Colleagues want to speak on the issue of regional Select Committees.
	The Deputy Leader of the House has suggested that it is relatively less important that we have time to discuss this internal business. It matters to the working of Britain's democracy whether we have regional Select Committees, how they are composed, how much travel they do and whether we should pay the Chairman; it matters whether the European Scrutiny Committee sits in private or in public; and it matters whether we have a Speaker's Conference, under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, about making ourselves more representative.
	Those are important matters, but the Deputy Leader of the House has argued that these issues must be timetabled, because otherwise we would eat into the time for important business. He suggested that we need to debate the state of the economy, but it was my colleagues who initiated the debate on the economy on Monday, not the Government. We still have not had an economic debate in Government time. Wednesday is the day when most colleagues are here, so there is no reason at all why we cannot have a debate that is not timetabled to discuss such matters in turn. Some colleagues are willing to attend this place on a Wednesday afternoon and a Wednesday evening, and some colleagues do not have to disappear at 6.30 or 7 o'clock this evening to do other things.
	We are willing to earn our money and do the job properly, and it is about time that the Government realised that this is the price that they will pay. They will be criticised every time they introduce business motions of this sort, because they are still insisting that the business of the House is decided by the Executive, not by Parliament. Until we get Parliament deciding Parliament's business—not the Executive, whatever party or combination of parties is in power—we will not be doing our job properly.
	This is a complete abuse of the Government's powers in this place, and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House—Labour Back Benchers and Opposition Members—will oppose the business motion.

Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has just said. Like him, I think that this is an abuse. I think, too, that many hon. and right hon. Members are prepared to sit late tonight on a matter of this importance. After all, those of us who have been Members of the House some little time always used to be here until 10 o'clock, without particular inconvenience. It may be that people now make different arrangements or want to get to their constituencies early on a Wednesday or have pressing engagements at freebie dinners, but that is not a first priority for hon. and right hon. Members.
	I want to make a few general points. First, there is a general principle that in a democratic body, Members who wish to express a view on matters of importance should be able to do so. Of course it is true that that is often a bore. Many of us are boring— [Interruption.] That is good of my hon. Friends, but it is also true that some of us are boring at least some of the time. However, one burden of being a Member of the House is to put up with bores.
	I was on the Front Bench as a Government Whip for quite a long time. By God, it was boring, but I at least recognised that part of the process of a democratic House is to listen to views. The point has already been made that quite significant issues are being discussed in the first group of motions—I think that all the issues are significant. If one reflects just for a moment on how many hon. and right hon. Members will intervene, one sees how inadequate the time will be. There will be Front-Bench spokesmen for the two leading parties and a Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Then somebody from the Modernisation Committee will be called, after which one or two illustrious parliamentarians will doubtless be called to speak. When the House has exhausted that lot, there will be very little for the rest of us, unless of course we fall into the category of the parliamentarian.
	Even with a limit of five minutes, which you have imposed, Mr. Speaker, very few Back Benchers will get into the debate, but if one looks at the kind of issue that will be raised in relation to the first grouping, one sees how important they are. Hon. and right hon. Members will be demanding an answer to the question, "Is there a need for these regional Select Committees?" Can the House staff them in terms of parliamentarians and House of Commons staff? Can the House justify the cost of £2 million or so, which is quite considerable? Will this proposal extend the powers of patronage available to those on the Front Benches? That is an important issue, because some Members will pay quite a lot in terms of their independence to sit on these regional Select Committees, and I am not sure that I want to give the Government, or even my own Front Benchers, a power of patronage.
	Incidentally, if the Chairman is to be paid, that will be another significant bit of patronage available to those on the Front Bench. I ask myself, "Are those not questions that need to be ventilated by as many people as want to speak?"

Douglas Hogg: Of course I understand that, Mr. Speaker. All I was seeking to do by identifying some of the issues was to make the point that lots of hon. and right hon. Members will want to intervene on an issue of this kind. That is particularly true in relation to the European Scrutiny Committee, because whether the Committee sits in private or in public is a matter of real concern, and I am sure that lots of hon. and right hon. Members will want to intervene on it. The time limits in the business motion are simply inadequate.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the whole reputation of the House suffers if important Select Committees, when taking evidence from distinguished witnesses, are unable to achieve a quorum? That has happened on many occasions. If we are to establish another eight Select Committees, it will be even more difficult for Select Committees of the House to achieve a quorum. Talking about the House as a whole, the House itself will suffer because fewer and fewer Members will be able to attend debates. Maybe that is what the Government want.

Patrick Cormack: I have had no coffee—indeed, I have not even had any lunch—and certainly nothing stronger. Speaking until 7 o'clock is a temptation, but one that I shall with some reluctance resist. However, it is important that we make our points forcefully.
	The Government have abused their position with regard to Parliament in many ways. I have said this many times, but it is an absolute scandal that the Modernisation Committee, once created, should have become the creature of the Government, by having the Leader of the House imposed as its Chairman. That is not the way that we have decided parliamentary matters in the past. If the next Conservative Government, whom I believe will be elected at the next general election, have the lack of wisdom to keep the Modernisation Committee—I hope that they will abolish it—they should certainly not allow the Leader of the House to chair it.
	The matter is brought into sharp focus today because the most controversial of the substantive motions, for which such inadequate time has been allocated today, were passed on the Leader of the House's casting vote. We then witnessed the ludicrous spectacle of the report being answered by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government, who said that she agreed with herself. That was of course a wonderful revelation for many of us.
	To allow only an hour and a half for the regional debate is utterly wrong. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you have rightly decided that speeches in that debate should be limited to five minutes, because you want as many hon. Members as possible to get in. Given that restraint, I hope that all three Front-Bench spokespersons will exercise self-restraint. I hope that we will not hear a lengthy speech from the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—much as I should enjoy listening to such a speech in other contexts—or the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. It is important that Back Benchers from all parts of the country should have an opportunity to express their views.
	I must try not to stray and deploy arguments that I will deploy later if I have the good fortune to get five minutes. However, there are questions of manpower and staffing to be answered. There is the question of why we need Select Committees if we are also to have, in my view perfectly properly, regional Grand Committees meeting, one hopes, in the regions to which they relate and on which all the hon. Members from that region will have the right to sit. I completely agree with that, but we should be able to debate the proposal at length. We should also be able to debate whether Chairmen should be paid and whether they should all sit on the Liaison Committee, which would thereby destroy it, by making it the most unwieldy Committee that the House will ever have seen.
	It is an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members and the House to say that all those issues should be debated in one and a half hours. Then we come to the other subjects that are to be discussed later. Although there might be a degree of urgency about some of them, there is not the same urgency about all of them. For instance, important as the suggestion is that you, Mr. Speaker, should chair a Speaker's Conference, we do not need to debate it until after Christmas. It could well be left to one side.
	Today should have been devoted to the regional issues and without time constraints, so that we could go on until 10 o'clock. That would have meant that everyone who had a view would have had the opportunity to express it. I suspect that even then, Mr. Speaker, you would have had to limit speeches to perhaps 12 or 15 minutes. I always remember the words of a vicar friend who told me, "If you haven't struck oil after eight minutes, stop boring." That would be fair enough and would have given hon. Members from all parts of the country the opportunity to take part in the debate.
	What is before us is not a programme motion; it is a steamroller motion designed to push through the Government's policy, not the House's wishes, and it is frankly appalling. In many ways, I wish that some of us had organised something of a conspiracy to ensure that we debated the issue until 7 o'clock, although it might not be too late.

Patrick Cormack: I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, made the point that speeches will be limited to five minutes. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will get one of those slots, as I hope I do. That is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, because it again illustrates that if there is a one-and-a-half-hour limit, we are dependent on speeches by Front-Bench Members being fairly restrained. We all know—you better than anyone, Mr. Speaker—that speeches from the Front Bench tend to be subject to interventions. That is perfectly reasonable. I would like the Leader of the House to limit her remarks to five minutes, but it is perfectly possible that she will provoke me or one of my hon. Friends—or many of them—to intervene. Before we know where we are, the Leader of the House will have spoken for 20 minutes. The shadow Leader of the House might be in the same position, having been intervened upon from the Labour Benches. That is perfectly legitimate, because it is right that those who have responsibility should be held to account at the Dispatch Box and that those who seek to challenge that responsibility from the Opposition Dispatch Box should also be able to defend their position. The same goes for the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. He is not the shadow Leader of the House—there is only one—but he is their spokesman on parliamentary matters, and it is important that he should be able to deploy, and answer for, his arguments.
	However, all that is supposed to happen in one and a half hours. I repeat that that is appalling.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I referred to the need to intervene on speeches from the Front Bench, including his own. It is important that those who espouse policies defend them properly. They cannot do so if they merely get up, read speeches and sit down. Of course, intervention is an essential part of debate.
	It would be an improvement if Front Bench speeches were excluded and if an hour a half were allocated to Back-Bench Members. I am in such a generous mood today that I will make another offer to the Leader of the House. If Mr. Speaker would accept a manuscript amendment to that effect, would she be willing to accept it? In other words, I should like her speech, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), which I am sure will be brilliant, and that of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey—his might be a shade long, but I am sure it will be very good—to be exempted, so that the rest of us can have an hour and a half. If you, Mr. Speaker, were willing, would the Leader of the House accept such an amendment? Good gracious. Every offer that I make on timing is spurned. I feel deeply dejected.

Patrick Cormack: For some years, the hon. Gentleman occupied with great distinction the position now held by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, who has just popped out to do something or other. He has underlined the unique role—and I use the word "unique" properly—of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is, of course, a member of the Executive, and is, of course, a leading member of the Government of the day. However, the Leader of the House also has a responsibility that transcends those party political duties.
	During my time in the House, we have had a number of very distinguished Leaders of the House who have exemplified that. I think of the late John Biffen, who, in my 38 years here, was perhaps the Leader of the House par excellence; but I also think of the late John Silkin, who was a man of great probity, a learned man, and a man who, when he was Leader of the House, considered it his duty to stand up to his fellow members of the Executive to defend the rights of the House. That is something that—with great respect—the right hon. and learned Lady, the present Leader of the House, has singularly failed to do.
	I do not know, of course, who insisted on the one and a half hours, but it may be that the Leader of the House was told that that was all she could have. I doubt it, because she is supposed to be in charge of the timetable, but if she was leant on, that was disgraceful, and if she did the leaning, that was even more disgraceful.

Greg Hands: May I take my hon. Friend back to a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) about the rights and opportunities for new Back Benchers to participate in these debates? I think that that is being severely curtailed.
	I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to comments made today in  The Guardian by the Leader of the House. She said:
	"If people see the Commons as a narrow and self-serving elite...then the Commons has no legitimacy."
	However, through her actions today, with these guillotine motions, she is doing precisely that by preventing there from being a wide cross-section of voices in these debates.

Richard Shepherd: All guillotine motions have the deliberate intent to stop people speaking. That is their outcome, and their purpose. In the history of this House, they have been treated very cautiously, with guillotines being imposed only for national events of great import, such as war. However, we have got to the stage where this most arrogant of Governments are now showing they have total control over the business on the Floor of the House of Commons and the way we identify issues of importance to us.
	All the points that I have been making in my 25 years in the House have been made in the debate already. We are no longer representative if we cannot speak on behalf of our constituents. Behind that, of course, is almost the oldest dictum in legal history—that our freedom and liberties lie at the interstices of procedure. That is what this is about: the Government tell us all the time that what happens in the House is boring to people outside, and that is why they can act in this way. No one pays attention to how we do our business, so why should we ourselves pay any attention to it?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) exposed the sheer sophistry of the Deputy Leader of the House and his casual approach to these matters. The Deputy Leader said that the motion had been on the Order Paper since last Thursday, so we could have proposed amendments to it. He is a former cleric, so we know that he understands that those who oppose the motion in principle do not want to compromise on that principle.
	That must be so, but the Deputy Leader has confronted the House with a matter of principle. The guillotine motion appeared on the Order Paper for both Monday and Tuesday and could have slithered through, but Members stayed behind on both nights to ensure that it did not. That is why we are here today, fighting for the business before us—but more than that: fighting for the justification and the rationale of our existence as a House of Commons.
	The Executive have so totally seized the Standing Orders and process of business of this House that they treat hon. Members with total contempt. That is what this is about. Why waste time in hearing the views of those who are sent by the constituencies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide matters and raise issues of great importance for those whom they represent? Why trouble with them?

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman did not sit in this House between '92 and '98; if he had, he could not make that statement. The Government of that time did not have a majority, and therefore could not insist in the way this Government do that they shall have every jot and iota of their business.  [Interruption.] I am sorry; I paused because I thought a Member was about to intervene.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there have been examples in the past of Governments with large majorities who have understood that the business of the House—such as the issues we are discussing—is of such importance that we must all play our part in making decisions, and that they would have been ashamed not to have allowed that? The Leader of the House, given her professional career, would have been the first person to have objected to anyone behaving in this way.

Richard Shepherd: I do not wish to speak for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire so I am no longer inviting interventions.
	If we cannot speak on behalf of those who sent us here, what is our purpose? If Governments cannot take seriously the processes and purposes of the House of Commons, we are all lost. We must have a sense of ourselves, but this motion rejects that. The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House tabled the subsequent motions and showed concern that we are debating this issue. They had this all wound up. There were attempts on Monday and Tuesday, and again today, to have an opportunity to speak on the virtues of these motions before us. They have now moved far from the Procedure Committee. They have seized the Standing Orders and the whole business of the House through the Modernisation Committee. As far as they were concerned, it had no purpose from the start and certainly not since the return from the summer recess. It has not even met. Its only purpose is to deliver yet more power into the Executive's hands.
	This issue matters to every one of us, from wherever we come. It is not just a question of "Hallelujah" to the passing Leader of the House, or whoever is the successor. This is about the belief that we are the representatives of the nation and about votes in this House, which are important—for the provision of Supply, which is the oil of Government, to name but one essential thing. This is an important matter, and it should be taken seriously. Until the Government learn that lesson, they who treat us with contempt will receive contempt.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and am sorry that I did not move on quickly enough to save you from rising from your seat. I will take that point, and hopefully will not test your patience again.
	To come back to the business motion and the time available to us, it is clear from the papers made available to the House on the Table that the motions have significant financial implications that are not at all straightforward. The Leader of the House may say that the issues are clear, but I say that they are not. The Management Board presented a paper to the House about the potential costs. I have already said that the potential cost of just the regional Select Committees and regional Grand Committees meeting a relatively limited number of times each year is £1.3 million—a charge on the taxpayer.
	A whole range of underlying assumptions about those costs are set out in the fairly complex paper. Each of those assumptions might need to be tested, but under the terms of the business motion, we are not to be given the opportunity to come close to testing those assumptions, so that we could get an idea of the costs to the taxpayer of the motions on the Order Paper. We in the House are charged with the proper expenditure of public funds; the money, of course, does not come from us, but from taxpayers generally. We will not be able to undertake that responsibility properly in the limited time available.
	In an intervention, I briefly mentioned the issue of the way in which the time is split between the groups of motions. Although the Speaker's Conference motion may not be as controversial as the others, it touches on some incredibly important issues that could affect the electoral system, the way in which the House of Commons is composed and the extent to which the House of Commons is felt to be representative. That debate has been allocated only one hour, which indicates that, in the view of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, it is less important than the other debates. However, the questions of whether Mr. Speaker shall have his conference set up and of the terms of reference may make the motion the most important on the Order Paper, but it may not be given proper time for debate.
	I want to mention one or two issues pertaining to the time available for the debate on regional Committees. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) drew attention to the fact that the party balance in the regions differs from the balance in the House and that the balance in each region is different. We should have proper discussion about whether it is appropriate for the regional Select Committees to reflect the balance of party opinion in the House, as opposed to in a region, and whether Members from outside a region should be on that region's Select Committee. The nature of the argument will be different for each region. Given that the proposal is to set up eight such Committees, it does not seem possible to discuss that properly and to allow Members from each region to participate—each region will be affected—in the time available.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire drew attention to the amendments on the Order Paper; there are a number of amendments on the motion on regional Select Committees, including an amendment on whether London should be included. There is a big debate to be had on that, but there is also concern about whether the mover of the amendment will even get the opportunity to be called to speak.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Regional Accountability (HC Paper No. 282); approves the proposals for regional select and grand committees for each of the English regions set out in the response from the Government in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm 7376); accordingly endorses the clear expectation that the regional select committees should meet significantly less frequently than departmental select committees; and considers that the combination of select committees providing opportunities for inquiries and reports into regional policy and administration together with opportunities for debate involving all honourable Members from the relevant region will provide a major step forward in the scrutiny of regional policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider the following:
	Amendment (c) in line 3, leave out from '282)' to 'opportunities' in line 9 and insert—
	'approves the proposals for regional grand committees for each English region set out in the response from the Government contained in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm. 7376); and considers that'.
	Amendment ((a) in line 5, after '(Cm 7376)', insert—
	'except that Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid.'.
	Motion 4— Regional Select Committees—
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite—
	(i) Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed, and
	(ii) specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership)
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	Amendment (a), in line 15, at end insert—
	'(i) London'.
	Amendment (b), in line 17, after first 'members', insert—
	'who represent constituencies within the relevant region'.
	Amendment (c) in line 19, at end, insert—
	'(2A) In nominating Members to the Committees under this order, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the proportion of Members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region;
	(2B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2A), the Committee of Selection shall nominate at least one Member from each of the three largest parties to each Committee.'.
	Amendment (d) in line 30, leave out from 'appointed' to end of line 32.
	Motion 5— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
	That this House expresses the opinion that the Resolution of the House of 30(th) October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) should be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
	Motion 6— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
	That the Resolution of the House of 30th October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
	Motion 7— Regional Grand Committees—
	That the following new Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009
	until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. Regional grand committees
	(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber
	which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within 15 the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
	(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for—
	(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place 20 in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
	(b) the time and duration of such a sitting; and
	(c) the business as provided in paragraph (4) to be conducted at it.
	(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	(4) The business of the committees may include—
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
	(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
	(c) general debates on specified matters.
	(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
	35 (6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
	 B. Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)
	(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph
	(2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
	(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
	(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
	(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no 50 question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
	(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the
	House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
	Amendment ((a), in line 1, after 'made', insert
	'and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee) be suspended'.
	Amendment ((b), in line 13 at end insert—
	'(i) London'.
	Amendment (c), in line 15 leave out from 'region' to end of line 17.

Harriet Harman: Today, I bring to the House the Government's proposals on regional accountability, to put in place an effective and visible improvement in the scrutiny of, and democratic accountability of, the public agencies and public policies that operate in the English regions. The reality is that in every region in England there are important public agencies, with budgets of billions of pounds. The decisions that they make, and how they put those decisions into practice, shape the future of the regions and profoundly affect those who live and work in them.
	At regional level, those agencies are much bigger than—and are beyond the accountability of—any local authority in the region. The regional development agencies, the strategic health authorities, the Learning and Skills Council and the Highways Agency are big regional beasts. Their regional directors and chief executives are regional "masters of the universe", with huge budgets. However, they are public bodies spending public money in the public interest, and it is right that they should be publicly accountable through this House to the region that they serve. Both in Parliament and within Government it has been recognised that there is the problem of an "accountability gap" in the regions; now we are seeking to do something about it.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will certainly consider bringing that forward.
	We propose that these new regional Select Committees are able, if they wish, to link up with local authorities. The motion therefore gives regional Select Committees the power, if they so wish, to invite local councillors to participate in their meetings, but not to move any motions or amendments, vote, or count towards the quorum.
	While the motions to establish regional Select Committees present the House with an opportunity to provide for detailed investigations into and reporting on agencies and action at regional level, we want to ensure that all Members in a region can be involved in greater regional accountability. We therefore propose that as well as the regional Select Committees, we establish regional Grand Committees to include all Members from the region. The regional Grand Committees will be a forum to consider the "state of the region" and would meet annually, or twice a year if the need arose. As with regional Select Committees, we expect that they will generally meet in the region, taking Parliament out of Westminster and into the regions.
	Regional Grand Committees will be able to hold wide-ranging debates and statements on regional issues, and provide Members in that region with an opportunity to put oral questions to regional Ministers to hold them to account for their work in fulfilling the responsibilities set out in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper. That will meet our commitment that they should be directly accountable to Parliament in that role. The resolution we are considering today, and the Modernisation Committee—

Harriet Harman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that as a London Member, he opposes the idea of a regional Select Committee in London. None the less, he is complaining that it is not on the Order Paper—presumably, so that he could vote against it. I will say something about London in a moment.
	The resolution that we are considering, and the Modernisation Committee inquiry, covers only the eight English regions. It does not cover Scotland, Wales or London, each of which have different governance arrangements. Scotland and Wales already have Grand and Select Committees tailored to each. London has different governance from the eight English regions, and I intend that following on from this resolution, we should turn our attention to London and get on with making arrangements for deepening the scrutiny of pan-London organisations, such as the strategic health authority. Following consultation, we will bring forward proposals to the House early in the new year.
	The proposals we are putting to the House today strengthen regional accountability to this House. They will provide every hon. Member who represents a constituency in the English regions an opportunity to participate in the scrutiny of regional policy and regional expenditure, alongside more detailed scrutiny by regional Select Committees. The resolution establishes these regional Committees only for the lifetime of this Parliament, at the end of which there will be the opportunity to review them and see how they have worked. I commend them to the House.

Theresa May: In speaking to the motion, I will also speak to the amendments, including the one standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). I am conscious of the desire of many Members to make their voices heard in this debate, so I will aim to restrict my remarks. I will not address the issue of whether the regions in question are the right ones, or whether some of the regional bodies that the Select Committees are due to hold to account should exist in their current form—a matter about which I have severe doubts. I also will not address the fact that the hole in regional accountability that the Government seem to think needs fixing is there only because of the way in which they have consistently set up new regional bodies to take responsibilities from this House and local authorities.
	I will address whether the way forward is through regional Select Committees. Before I do that, it is important to set the matter in context. We need to remember that regional Select Committees were first proposed in a statement made to the House in July 2007 by the Prime Minister. That statement was accompanied by a Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain", from the Ministry of Justice. It proposed regional Select Committees as a means of achieving formal and consistent parliamentary scrutiny, not only of regional policy but of regional Ministers—new posts created by this Prime Minister. I shall not go into great detail on that issue. Suffice it to say, I believe that regional Ministers should be held to account for what they do, through oral questions regularly either in this House or in Westminster Hall, not through oral questions to regional Grand Committees that take place only twice a year, as proposed by the Government. We need to be able to hold those Ministers to account in a better way.
	As was referred to in the previous debate, the issue was discussed at considerable length in the Modernisation Committee, and as a member of that Committee, I sat through evidence from regional bodies, the House authorities and Chairmen of existing Select Committees. It was absolutely clear that no case was made for regional Select Committees as the answer to the problem of the need for increased regional accountability. There was no consensus on the move to regional Select Committees, and the Modernisation Committee, in its report, raised severe doubts about the impact of regional Select Committees. It referred to
	"practical challenges in their creation, including: the risk of disrupting existing departmental select committee business; the potential to distract public bodies and agencies working in the regions from their core activities and central lines of accountability; the possibility of duplicating scrutiny work already being undertaken in the regions; the additional burden on Members' time and workload; increased demands on House resources".
	Given the reservations of the Modernisation Committee, it is all the more important that the House knows that this proposal, which originated from a policy proposal of the Prime Minister and the Government, was pushed through the Committee on the Chairman's casting vote—the Chairman being, of course, the Leader of the House. There was no consensus for change. You may call me old-fashioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I happen to think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said during the earlier debate, that when we are changing the structure of the House, Select Committees or other matters relating to the House, the Leader of the House should aim for consensus among the parties, so that there is general acceptance of the proposals in this House.

Theresa May: I should like to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time, but I do not want to sit down before I have made a point about the strain that regional Select Committees will put on the House. That is important. There is already difficulty in finding people to fill existing Committee posts, yet we propose the creation of 72 new posts. Problems with filling vacancies will not be helped by the proposal. Indeed, there is a danger that the committees could find themselves in the farcical position of not having enough members or being inquorate, and that would have an impact on witnesses and perceptions of the House.
	We also need to consider the House's resources. The Management Board has made it clear that there would need to be new staff. Existing Clerks could take up some of the work load, but many new staff would need to be recruited, hired, trained and so on.
	That brings me to cost. We are told that the annual running costs of the committees could amount to just over £1 million. I suspect that it would be considerably higher. Together with the outlay on regional Grand Committees, which the Government also propose, the bill will fast approach £1.5 million if not £2 million a year. That money could be rather better spent.
	To plug the regional accountability gap, we need go no further than setting up regional Grand Committees, which would give every Member in a region the opportunity to make their views known about what was being done by bodies in their region. Every part of a region would be represented, and we would avoid the position that could arise with the regional Select Committees, whereby people from outside the region may be included to maintain the Government's majority. The Grand Committees would not need to meet so often, and their running costs would be significantly lower than those of the regional Select Committees.
	Let me consider the amendments that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) tabled. Select Committees should comprise Members, not members of local authorities co-opted on to them. If the hon. Gentleman pressed that, I would support him. I also support amendment (a) about Chairmen's pay. It is proposed to pay them in the same way as the Chairmen of other Select Committees, which would meet much more frequently and have a far greater work load. The House should reject that.

James Plaskitt: I greatly welcome the proposal to introduce regional Select Committees for two simple reasons: they will plug a clear gap in accountability and oversight, and they will help Members of Parliament in the regions serve our constituents more effectively.
	Many issues come to us as regional Members of Parliament that we cannot easily tackle at a regional level. If issues that are unique to our constituencies arise, that is fine—we have easy access to the public authorities that deal with them. If national issues arise in our constituencies, we can raise them here. However, many issues are regional, and we do not currently have the means through Parliament, or our role as Members of Parliament, to hold regional organisations to account.
	Members of Parliament are not the only ones to want access to regional organisations; many regional organisations want the opportunity to meet regional Members of Parliament and would welcome the introduction of regional Select Committees. They cannot currently bring together Members of Parliament from the regions, but a forum such as that the one the proposal envisages would provide an opportunity to do that.
	Cross-departmental co-ordination is essential. The Government are therefore right to appoint regional Ministers, but, to complete the circle of accountability, those Ministers should also appear before regional Select Committees.
	A considerable gap exists. The regional authorities in the west midlands spend tens of billions of pounds. Parliament could spend a small amount of money to help secure proper accountability for a vast amount of public spending. The structure of who does what in the regions can be difficult for Members of Parliament to navigate. Parliamentary oversight might help achieve greater co-ordination between the different organisations that work in the regions, and even some rationalisation.

Simon Hughes: This is an important debate, which is why it is a disgrace that we have only an hour and a half for it. Many Members will not have the say that they want to have, and should have. I ask the House to accept amendments (b) and (c) to motion 4, and amendment (c) to motion 7, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	The Government are in their present difficulties because they have never properly grasped the need to address devolution in England. They honourably and rightly—if eventually and under pressure—realised that devolution was necessary for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I note that devolution to those places gave them proportional representation for their Parliaments and Assemblies, so that they are representative of the people whom they represent. London also has a degree of devolution, introduced by this Government, that is representative of the people of London and provides an element of accountability. But this Government have never understood the need for devolution in England. Until they understand that, they will not command the necessary support in this House for their proposals.
	There are different views about how to achieve that devolution for England. Some of my colleagues would prefer a form of regional government, but that was tried—and clearly did not succeed—in the north-east. Some of us believe in an English Parliament, but that suggestion requires constitutional deliberation on how to complete devolution across the United Kingdom. In the absence of such structures, it is right to have a way of holding regional bodies to account, including the quangos and strategic bodies that are not held to account at present. The Government have further failed to grasp the central obligation that follows from that—that those bodies should be held to account by representatives from each region who are chosen by the people of that region.
	My party would argue that those representatives should reflect the votes in those regions, but in three regions the Government came second or third in share of the vote at the last general election. Even if we do not win that argument, the Government should at least propose Select Committees that reflect the balance of political representation in each region, which differ hugely from each other. The Committees should also reflect the differences between the regions, but the Leader of the House—as she confirmed earlier in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—has failed to accept that.
	We propose that the same principle should apply that—it could be argued—currently applies to the Scottish and Welsh Committees. Scotland and Wales have a majority of Labour Members, and so do the Committees. Northern Ireland has never had the benefit of a fair system: there are nine MPs from the Democratic Unionist party and nine others, but that balance is not reflected on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
	It is now proposed that the Government should have a majority on the regional Committee for every one of the eight regions of England. At the last general election, the Government did not win the largest share of the vote in the east, south-east or south-west of England. Indeed, they came third in the south-east and the south-west—regions with millions of people. The Government are trying to impose their majority in all of England, when they do not have a majority in every region. Worse, they are trying to fiddle the system so that they can bus in colleagues from other regions to make up their majority. They are insisting that the Grand Committees, made up of all the Members from every party, should have up to five other nominated members. Not content with corrupting the balance on the Select Committees, the Government also want to pervert the balance of the Grand Committees. The Leader of the House must understand that that is causing the greatest offence and suggests great disrespect to the people in many of the regions, some of whom already think that their region is an artificial creation or difficult to accept. They are being told that not only do they have to accept those artificially created regions, but that they will have imposed on them a Government majority, no matter how they have voted in the past.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we have also argued that the Chairmen of the new Committees should not be paid the same as the Chairmen of a UK-wide subject-based Committee. Eight new Committees are proposed, so we suggested that the Chairmen should be paid an eighth of what the other Chairmen are paid. If that is not accepted, we share the view of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that, at least to start with, those posts should not be remunerated. Otherwise, we will just be accused of creating more jobs at public expense.
	May I make a point to endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)? We have 41 Select Committees. If we agree to this proposal, there will be 49. There will then be a Speaker's Conference, with the same powers as a Select Committee, which makes 50. There will be 72 more members of Select Committees as a result of such a decision being taken today, and more as a result of there being a Speaker's Conference, which we are to appoint later.
	At the moment, 159 colleagues serve on more than one Select Committee, eight serve on as many as four and I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you are not aware of it, that many Committees struggle to achieve an adequate attendance. It does the credibility of the House no good to have a small and sometimes inquorate number of colleagues on Committees sitting to take evidence from whoever we call. That is not good for our reputation and it is why we ask the Leader of the House, before adding another range of Select Committees to our armoury, to defer all these debates until we can review the workings of Select Committees generally.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have tabled three amendments. The first draws attention to the fact that there is an injunction, as it were, that the Committees should not meet very often. That is absurd. If I were serving on such a Committee, I would not be constrained by that request—or, rather, hope—but would want to stretch the envelope to the maximum to ensure that the Committee was at least of some value. The proposal is nonsense and shows that the idea has not been fully thought through. I will not divide the House on that amendment, but I mention it to highlight my other amendments. If I am right in my judgment that the envelope will not be stretched, why should we pay the Chairmen of those Committees the same as we pay the Chairmen of departmental Select Committees? The idea is simply bonkers.
	In addition, there is the high payroll vote, which has already been referred to—I discovered in 2005 that 144 hon. Members were not on the basic MP's pay, and the figure must be a lot higher now. I urge hon. Members to reflect on that, because it is very unhealthy to say the least. There is also the paradox of the Deputy Leader of the House, who is not paid a bean, advocating that Chairmen should be paid. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his salary for his friends. The growth of the payroll vote and the patronage that goes with it is very unhealthy.
	I hope to divide the House on my amendment dealing with that issue, because, even if I am wrong in my judgment that those Chairmen should not be paid at all, if the House accepts my amendment, there can be a period of reflection. Perhaps they should be paid a per diem, but not on the same rate as the Chairs of the departmental Committees. I hope that I will take the House with me on that.
	My second concern of substance is the provision in the proposed Standing Order that would allow a regional Committee to invite
	"specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed...to attend and participate".
	Have we no pride? I fought hard to get elected to this place. It was five general elections before I got elected. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and my duties as a Member of Parliament are indivisible. Councillors' jobs are very important, but we should not blur the issues by bringing the two together. I urge hon. Members to stand up for Parliament and be jealous of their rights and privileges.

Andrew MacKinlay: No.
	Privileges are important, because what happens under parliamentary privilege? I can be admonished by the House if I abuse parliamentary privilege. We are self-regulating. How can you deal with someone who is not a Member of this House, but who abuses parliamentary privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will we have a separate register of interests for these people? The idea has not been thought through, which is why I hope we will reject it, if for no other reason than that.
	When I was a young councillor, I would have been proud to serve on a parliamentary Committee—I would have given my right hand to do so—but I was very partisan and saw it as my mission to get elected to this place. We can imagine the councillors coming in, taking on the Minister here and the official there, but that will diminish what I hope we try to do, which is to leave our party allegiances at the Committee Room door. I do not know whether there are any Scottish or Welsh Members in the Chamber, but if having elected councillors is good for me in Essex, I shall similarly be proposing that some people from Scottish local authorities and assemblies should serve on the Scottish Select Committee, too. What is being proposed really is mad, so I ask hon. Members to join me in the Lobby against those two proposals.
	My final point is about Members of Parliament who are not from the region concerned serving on, say, the south-west regional Committee. I have asked myself, "Could I possibly do this?" In my judgment, I would have to be stark staring bonkers to go and serve on a Committee covering a region of which my constituency formed no part. Surely we are all busy. I must say that those who sign up will do so with full knowledge and consent, and will be subject to criticism by their electors. Their electors will ask: "What the devil are you doing focusing on that region and not ours?"
	Earlier, one of the Whips muttered to me, "What about Ireland?" That is a different situation, because the question of Northern Ireland is demonstrably, because of its history, a United Kingdom matter. However, when people go from one region to another, they will be subject to criticism. They must remember that they have to agree under Standing Orders to serve on a Committee, so they cannot blame the Whips or hide behind them, or excuse themselves. They will have signed up, so they can be subject to criticism.

Question again proposed.

George Young: I rise to speak to amendment (a) to motion 7. I note that because of the guillotine motion, there are only 30 minutes for all Opposition Back Benchers to speak in this debate.
	The amendment would abolish the Regional Affairs Committee. Colleagues could be excused for not knowing that there was one. Standing Orders require one to be established, but the Government have not done so in this Parliament. Week after week at meetings of the Committee of Selection, we wait for the Government to propose members of the Committee, yet nothing happens. The Government clearly must feel that the Committee serves no useful purpose, so I hope that they will accept the amendment.
	The Regional Affairs Committee, to remind colleagues, was applauded when it was introduced. In 2000, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), said:
	"We believe that such a forum will add usefully to the procedures of the House".—[ Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 367, c. 295.]
	The Committee has been so useful that it has not met since April 2003, which indicates that it is a wholly dispensable part of our constitution. The amendment would simply put it out of its misery.
	That is relevant to today's debate, because it shows that the Government have form in coming up with the wrong answer to the regional question. We told the Government eight years ago that it would not work. In a powerful speech, the then shadow Leader of the House—me—said that the Government had come up with the wrong answer. That debate ended in the small hours of the morning of 12 April, which shows how long ago it was. We lost by 60 votes, which was a good result at the time. That proposal came from straight from the Government; it was not even laundered through the Modernisation Committee, as the proposals that we are debating have been.
	That brings me to my second point. When the Prime Minister announced the new committees in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper, he said:
	"Consideration of changes to the way the House of Commons operates is ultimately a matter for the House itself".
	However, if we turn to page 42 of the Modernisation Committee report, what do we find? It states:
	"Draft Report (Regional Accountability), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read."
	Who is the Chairman? The Leader of the House is the Chairman. We can see on page 52 that the Committee tied, and that the Chairman declared herself for the Ayes. That does not strike me as leaving the matter to the House to decide. Rather, it strikes me as the Government obliging the House to accept something that it does not want.
	We then have the ultimate of absurdities, the Government response, which begins:
	"The Government welcomes the report from the Modernisation Committee on Regional Accountability".
	Who presented this report to Parliament? It was none other than the Leader of the House—it is straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan. Frankly, it is an abuse of the Select Committee procedure. Every other Select Committee is chaired by a Back Bencher and contains no Ministers, because Select Committees are instruments of the House to hold the Government to account. The Modernisation Committee is an instrument that the Government are using. That could weaken our ability to hold them to account because of the impact on existing Select Committees, which brings me to my third and final point.
	A little-read document, "Sessional Returns", shows how the existing pressure on the time of colleagues affects their attendance on Select Committees. The average attendance for the most prestigious Committee—the Public Accounts Committee—for the last year for which figures exist, was 47.2 per cent. So, for most of the meetings, most of the members were not there. I say that not in a spirit of criticism of colleagues, but as a statement of fact. There is a lot of pressure on our time because the Government have packed everything into two days of the week. The Regulatory Reform Committee manages 42.3 per cent. attendance, and five of the 14 members attended no meetings at all in the last Session for which there are records. The figures for the Environmental Audit Committee are 44.5 per cent. and for the Trade and Industry Committee 50.2 per cent. For the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committees—those most like the new regional Select Committees—the figures are 56 per cent. and 52 per cent. Where, then, are the folk sitting on these new Select Committees coming from; and if they turn up, what will happen to the existing ones?
	I, too, read in  The Guardian that the Government Chief Whip is going punish folk who vote against the Government by refusing to put them on Select Committees. He has got it exactly wrong: the punishment is being put on a regional Select Committee, and for voting against the Government twice, it is being put on a regional Select Committee for a region other than the one the Member represents! Many other arguments cut across existing Select Committees, and regional Ministers do not have responsibility for the all the budgets or all the issues. The propositions before us are a nonsense, and I hope the House throws them out at 4.18.

Neil Turner: No, I do not think it would. It would be too large and unwieldy, unable to do the job properly.
	We are sometimes seen as being out of touch, which makes it important that regional Select Committees meet in their respective regions. It is essential that we take Parliament out of here and take it to the people; let us have meetings there, so that people can properly see the work we do and value it that much more.
	Another positive factor is that these regional Select Committees are non-departmental. We all know that health problems, economic problems, transport and skills problems impact on each other. It is important to avoid the silos of Departments, which can detract from our ability to look across at the issues and come up with the solutions. The regional Select Committees, in being non-departmental, will have that ability to look across the region and provide solutions that involve all the people of the region—the quangos, the outside bodies, businesses, the trade unions and so forth. That is an important innovation, and once we have some experience of these regional Select Committees up and running, we can think about extending the concept further. We could look more into scrutinising issues rather than Departments.
	Finally, let me say that the regional Select Committees must be proactive. We should not just consider what has been done and the decisions that have been made. The regional agenda is so important that the Committees will need to be involved with the issues at the heart of it. They will need to be proactive and involve people, so that we can put everything together and establish a regional agenda that includes what the region needs for the future.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name, which are supported by 14 London Members in total and particularly address the London dimension. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House discussed that in her opening remarks, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that we have had over the past couple of days to try to resolve the position of London.
	London is the biggest region; it contains 7.2 million people and is growing. It is different from the rest of the country; it has the Mayor and the Greater London authority. There remains a major role for central Government to play; there are a large number of non-devolved areas and a large number of areas where they work in partnership with other agencies. There is an overwhelming need to ensure proper co-ordination of Government key programmes, and that can be done effectively only through parliamentary scrutiny provided by a London Select Committee. There will be no difficulty with political balance in a London Committee, because London is one of the few regions that has plenty of Members from all the parties, which will ensure that we can staff it ourselves. Our area has the Government office for London—other regions have similar bodies—which also ought to be accountable to Parliament. We have our own Minister for London, and he ought to be accountable to us, as should his two assistant Ministers.
	London is different: it accounts for 16.7 per cent. of the UK's economic output; and economic difficulties, such as those facing us now, have a particularly severe impact on the City and financial services jobs. In many ways, the downturn's impact in London is different from that in the rest of the country. We also need to address the issues associated with deprivation in London. Four of the top eight—or the bottom eight, depending on how one looks at this—most deprived authorities in England are in London. The city has serious child poverty; 50 per cent. of children in inner London are in low-income households. The benefits regime operates very differently in London, because of the high cost of living, the way in which housing benefit works and the low take-up of tax credit. The Government office for London programmes, the new deal for communities, the delivery of decent homes and neighbourhood renewal and regeneration are all issues on which we should have a say.
	The issue of health also needs to be considered. London has its own regional strategic health authority— NHS London—and the Government office for London examines inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality. What is contained in the huge change that NHS London is introducing must be subject to detailed scrutiny. The Darzi review deals with issues of general practitioner access, the controversial polyclinics, the reconfiguration of hospital services, the potential separation of elected and acute services, and the possible controversial closures of certain general hospitals. We must also consider the joint commissioning being organised among the primary care trusts and the, unfortunately low, take-up of some of the immunisation programmes. The PCTs have local authority scrutiny panels, but we do not have a similar arrangement at the strategic, London-wide level, which a London Select Committee could provide.
	Transport for London deals with buses and the tube, but the enormous £5.5 billion Thameslink modernisation programme comes under the Department for Transport, not TFL. There is a new, enormous involvement from central Government in the Crossrail programme to consider and, of course, only yesterday we debated a third runway at Heathrow—that central Government policy decision will have a major impact on London across the board. Then there is the Olympics to consider, in which the Government have a major role to play. We have our own Minister for the Olympics, who ought to be accountable to Parliament through a Select Committee arrangement.
	The case for a Select Committee for London has been strongly made. A London Committee does not have to follow exactly the same model as the other Committees, and it is, thus, right that we should consider it in the context of devolution to London. Special problems face London, and I hope that the Leader of the House's consultation on this matter will be short and sharp. I hope that she will be able to come back to the House in the early new year with concrete proposals to ensure that London gets the representation and the scrutiny of the Minister, of the Government office for London and of all the other bodies that we should be able to achieve for London Members in this House.

Andrew George: I am aware of the time pressures on contributions to the debate, and I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect on them and on the dilemmas faced by Back Benchers as a result. I believe that, in future, Back Benchers should be given a protected opportunity to question a Minister—or, in this case, the Leader of the House—according to a procedure similar to that used by the European Scrutiny Committee.
	We have not had that opportunity today. Like other hon. Members, I have wanted to intervene on the Leader of the House on many occasions today, only to find that she would not accept an intervention. Having voted the proposals through as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, she is clearly responsible for the policy that we are debating. I believe that we need to be able to scrutinise the matter far more than we have been able to do so far.
	I also want to query the Government's sincerity in bringing forward these proposals. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) explained earlier, we were assured that the creation of the Regional Affairs Standing Committee would fill the gap left by devolution to Scotland, Wales and London. However, it was within the gift of Ministers to decide when that Committee would be called and what subjects would be debated, so in the end the full opportunity that the Committee offered was never properly used.
	In fact, the Government had a perfect opportunity immediately after the north-east referendum to reflect on why their plan and approach at that stage had failed so catastrophically. However, they failed to learn the lesson from that that devolution is all about letting go, not about holding on for dear life. What the Government in effect did in the north-east was say, "We've decided the boundaries of these places. We've decided what powers. We've decided the timetable. We've decided everything about this. Now do you want it or not?" Such an impatient, centralised approach—demanding from the Government zones of the country and expecting them to acquiesce to centralised diktats—clearly demonstrated why the Government had failed.
	These regions are not regions in the sense that they have internal integrity and a community of interest. They are Government zones set up for administrative convenience. The Government should loosen up a bit and allow the localities around the country to bring forward their own proposals for the management of all the services that are controlled from central Government. This monstrous and inept policy failure, and the fudge and distasteful abuse of power of the creation of these regional Select Committees, is the inevitable product of a Government who do not want to listen to the regions they have created.
	Many hon. Members have pointed up the clear—albeit, perhaps, entertaining—absurdity of what is likely to happen in the Government zone of the south-west. It has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Labour Members from outside the area will be dragooned into sitting—whether or not as willing volunteers. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to reflect on the fact that several Labour Members from outside the Government zone have come to me and said, "We look forward to being appointed to the Government zone for the south-west Select Committee, because we have enjoyed many holidays in the area and we can go down there and reflect on our holiday experience." That highlights a problem we have to fight against constantly. We always have to punch our way through the impression that the south-west is merely a holiday zone. I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect on that.

Patrick Cormack: I do not even have five minutes. Let me make three points. First, we have artificial regions in this country, as many people have said. Secondly, the burden that the Select Committees will put on the workings of the House, and the clashes and conflicts with existing Select Committees, have not been properly thought out. Thirdly, I am totally opposed to drafting on to a Committee Members who have no connection with the region in question; that is grotesque. It is an appalling suggestion. The Grand Committees could be made to work, as long as Members from other regions are not drafted in. It is a good idea for all the Members who represent a designated region to meet once or twice a year, and to have Ministers before them; I accept that. However, to add on regional Select Committees, to pay the Chairmen of those Committees—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Amendment proposed, (c), in line 3, leave out from '282)' to 'opportunities' in line 9 and insert
	'approves the proposals for regional grand committees for each English region set out in the response from the Government contained in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm. 7376); and considers that'. —[Mrs. May.]

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: (a), in line 5, after '(Cm 7376)', insert
	'except that Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid.'. — [Andrew Mackinlay.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 237.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite—
	(i) Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed, and
	(ii) specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership)
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.— [Barbara Keeley.]
	 Amendment proposed, (b), in line 17, after first 'members', insert
	'who represent constituencies within the relevant region'.— [Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 235.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: (c), in line 19, at end, insert—
	'(2A) In nominating Members to the Committees under this order, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the proportion of Members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region;
	(2B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2A), the Committee of Selection shall nominate at least one Member from each of the three largest parties to each Committee.'.— [Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 231.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment made: (d), in line 30, leave out from 'appointed' to end of line 32.— [Andrew Mackinlay.]
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	 Ordered ,
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees 
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership) 
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following new Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. Regional grand committees
	(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber
	which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
	(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for—
	(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
	(b) the time and duration of such a sitting; and
	(c) the business as provided in paragraph (4) to be conducted at it.
	(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	(4) The business of the committees may include—
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
	(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
	(c) general debates on specified matters.
	(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
	(6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
	 B. Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)
	(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
	(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
	(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
	(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
	(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
	 Amendment  made : (a), in line 1, after 'made', insert 'and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee) be suspended' .—[ Sir George Young.]
	 Amendment proposed: (c), in line 15, leave out from 'region' to the end of line 17 .—[Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 219.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment (a), line 3, at end add
	'and that paragraph 10 of Standing Order No. 143 be replaced by the following paragraph:
	'(10) Each such Committee shall determine at the beginning of each meeting whether any part of or all of its business that day shall be conducted in private';
	and that the Standing Order, as amended, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.'.
	Motion 9— Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders)—
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 24A (Topical debates)—
	(d) in line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'ten'; and
	(e) in line 24, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 26 and insert 'a maximum of five interventions.'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified
	matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.
	And the following amendment thereto: (a), leave out lines 7 to 10.

Chris Bryant: No, I do not think that I should like to take this opportunity to do that. I note that the hon. Gentleman has not tabled an amendment to the motion, and he could have done, because they have been on the Order Paper for a full week now. However, I want to ensure that all Members have an opportunity to take part equally, so if he has proposals he should feel free to come and talk to me about them.
	We are taking forward another measure that has been in operation over the past year: emergency debates. We have changed Standing Order No. 24, and the new system will allow for greater flexibility so that Mr. Speaker can determine not only the date of the debate—formerly, it could be taken only on the next day, immediately—but its length. Previously, such debates could go on for only three hours, but if the motion is approved Mr. Speaker will be able to determine that it continue for longer.
	Hon. Members will know that one of the other innovations over the past year has been topical questions. Members have pretty much universally welcomed the fact that during every Question Time matters that are entirely topical can be raised, because the questions are effectively open. That has added a much greater sense of topicality and interest. Sometimes I wonder whether the Opposition parties have decided always to use the topical session merely as a means to try to trip up the Government, but it is clear that the whole House supports such opportunities, and as their continuing does not depend on any Standing Order change, it is not mentioned in the motion.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that my hon. Friend considers all his requests to be reasonable. I agree with him. I was about to say that one of the other innovations relating to Standing Orders is that European Committees may now have present members of the European Scrutiny Committee and the relevant departmental Committee. It is sometimes a tall order to be able to arrange hon. Members' timings. I am happy to speak to the Whips and to others about that.

Theresa May: I beg to move amendment (a) to motion 8. I should also like to move amendment (a) to motion 9.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asks about the difference between the European Scrutiny Committee and the other Committees mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the House when he was talking about the normal procedures of the House. I was about to make the point that I disagree with the Government's position precisely because the European Scrutiny Committee is very different from other Select Committees. The other Select Committees take evidence in public on issues, and then they decide what they are going to say about those issues. The European Scrutiny Committee is completely different. It decides the importance of the legislation from Europe that constitutes 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the legislation passed in this country. That is very different from the normal job of a Select Committee.
	Labour Members get very excited about this issue, but it has long been my view that one of the problems in the debate about European legislation is that many people feel that it is something that is done to us, without this Parliament giving it any proper scrutiny. The figures show that of the 1,000 or so documents that the European Scrutiny Committee sees each year, only some 500 are considered to be significant and only some 50 receive proper scrutiny and debate. It is my firm belief that if we opened up the process to show what the House is doing on European legislation, it would be valuable in showing the public the role that the House plays. We should go further in scrutinising European legislation, but the debate today is about the European Scrutiny Committee.

Keith Hill: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the note from the Library that reveals that a maximum of 10 per cent. of the statutory instruments considered by the House originate in Europe? Can she offer the House the evidence she has for her assertion that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of our legislation originates in Europe?

Richard Younger-Ross: I wish to deal with an issue which, although it is occupying a smaller part of the debate, is as important as the rest—topical debates. We welcome the Government amendments. We particularly welcome the provision of 10 minutes rather than six, principally because that is the procedure followed in other parts of the House such as Westminster Hall, and we see no reason for it to be rejected. As for the Conservative amendment, I think it particularly mean that more Conservative Front Benchers than Liberal Democrat Front Benchers will always be called to speak because of the balance of membership in the House, and the ratio of those who are likely to catch the Speaker's eye will be three or four to one. That is in the nature of things.
	We need a more open way of deciding the subject of the topical debate. In April, the Procedure Committee recommended the following:
	"A topical debate business committee should be established which would be responsible for the scheduling of and choice of subject for topical debates. Its membership should include backbenchers and business managers. Its chairman should be a backbencher."
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider that? Alternatively, will he explain why that recommendation cannot be implemented? He may conclude that he does not want to go down that path, but does he recognise that if we do not use a cross-party business committee to choose the subject, more needs to be done to improve the transparency of this selection process? Members need to know the rationale behind the choices made, because the subjects sometimes do not appear to be inherently topical. Tomorrow, we shall debate obesity, but I am unsure as to why, all of a sudden, that should be the subject of a topical debate, despite its importance.
	Let me turn to the substantive issue of the quality of debate in the European Scrutiny Committee. I have sat on the Committee for just over three years, and I served on European Standing Committees for four years before that. I take the point made by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), that those Committees were a good training ground. I wish that we could return to a situation where people served some time on them, and perhaps we could consider that. As he will recall, the problem was that Members who were put on to the European Standing Committees felt as though they were being sent to Siberia—they felt as though they were being punished by the Whips by being made to serve on those Committees for a long time. Whether or not that was a misperception on the part of some Members, the system had its merits, and we need to examine how that structure worked.
	As the shadow Leader of the House has mentioned, there needs to be a still wider debate on how we undertake scrutiny in this House. Denmark joined what is now the EU at the same time as the UK, but it has a far more robust system of scrutiny, as do all the new countries that have joined. [Hon. Members: "No they don't!"] A number of them do. Finland has a robust system, with which the Modernisation Committee was enamoured when it visited that country—it was the basis for one of the proposals as to how we reform scrutiny, but that was rejected. Both the previous and existing Chairs of the European Scrutiny Committee are in the Chamber, and they, like other Members who have served on it, know that proposals have been made on this matter. The shadow Leader of the House made a series of proposals that would have brought Members of the European Parliament to sit alongside us. That seemed to go down fairly well in certain circles until it reached the Whips, who seemingly decided that they could not control what was emerging and so it was flattened.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman, I think, served on the Committee when I did. We visited the Folketing in Copenhagen to look at their methods of scrutiny. I agree totally that that Parliament is far more robust and rigorous in how it scrutinises European legislation, but I would say that this Parliament is second after the Folketing out of the 27 member states of the EU.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I must say that we have had a very candid and frank set of exchanges on this matter. The great bulk of the expansion in the time of the Committee's proceedings has occurred in the private, rather than the public, session.
	The truth is that we have instituted a grossly inefficient procedure, and for no good reason, as there is no public demand to observe our proceedings. Also, since there is no evidence to suggest that the public are interested in our proceedings—as opposed to our conclusions, which are published—there can be no justification for making public the entirety of our proceedings, because that would entail placing on the public record the private views and recommendations of our lay advisers, and some of us believe that that would be bound in time to affect the quality of the advice that they offer us. I also remind the House that it would be unprecedented for utterances of non-elected persons—whom we must remember are advisers, not witnesses—to form a large part, if not the bulk, of the written record of a Committee. I think the House will want to ponder long and hard before going down that path.
	Just over three weeks ago, the European Scrutiny Committee—

Angus Robertson: rose—

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

David Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that some common sense has been injected into the debate with the acceptance that the official advice should be private to us? Perhaps our debate about the issues should be public, but the crucial thing is that the advice should be in private so that the officials remain private people and do not become public, political figures. That would be the problem.

William Cash: Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker— [Laughter.]
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Amendment proposed: (a), in line 3, at end add
	'and that paragraph 10 of Standing Order No. 143 be replaced by the following paragraph:
	'(10) Each such Committee shall determine at the beginning of each meeting whether any part of or all of its business that day shall be conducted in private'; and that the Standing Order, as amended, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.'.— [Mrs. May.]

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Resolved,
	That the amendments to Standing Order No. 119 and the amendments to nomenclature in the Standing Orders agreed to by this House on 7th February 2008, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-5 07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 24A (Topical debates)—
	(d) in line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'ten'; and
	(e) in line 24, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 26 and insert 'a maximum
	10 of five interventions.'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified
	matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.— [Ms Harman.]
	 Amendment proposed: (a), leave out lines 7 to 10.  —[Mrs. May.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 87.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	 Ordered, ,
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified
	matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.

Shailesh Vara: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way. I am mindful that there is a limited time for this debate and that many people wish to speak. I am sure she will have an opportunity to come in later.
	As for disabled people being in the House, that issue must be examined. We must ensure that the opportunities for their selection as candidates and election as Members are the same as those for non-disabled people. We must address something else if we are to have more disabled people in the House: we must ensure that the House itself is more easily accessible for them. It is bad enough that there are barriers to getting elected to the House, but worse still is the fact that the House itself is so difficult to get about for those who are disabled.
	I am mindful of the wilfully short time that has been devoted to debating this important motion, so I conclude simply by welcoming the motion, which I very much hope will help to pave the way to having a 21st century Parliament that represents 21st century Britain.

Simon Hughes: I am pleased for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). People will note and applaud what he said and how he said it. It is a great pleasure to have people such as him in the House and to see the change that has happened since the Leader of the House and I were elected.
	I pay tribute to the Leader of the House. We have had our differences on other matters earlier today, but she has made it absolutely clear that this place needs fundamental and wholesale reform of its membership. I have shared that view since the moment I came through these doors, a couple of months after she did.
	We live in a country where the majority of people are women. Parliament should reflect our country. In other countries in Europe, in Latin America and in Africa—for example, in Rwanda—there are Parliaments that have almost an even balance between women and men.
	We live in a country where significant numbers of people are black and from other minority communities. The Leader of the House's constituency, and mine, have large African communities, which improve where we live and make them different, better and more interesting.
	We live in a diverse, exciting Britain, but it does not always feel like that in this House. Why? Instead of having 10 per cent. black and minority ethnic Britons in the House, which would be about the right ratio, we have nothing like that. It is frustrating for me and my colleagues. Our party had the first non-white MP, elected to Finsbury in the 1880s, but we have not been able to sustain that. There was a long period when no party had any black, Asian or minority MP at all, until the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and others came. They made it very clear that it should not just be them, but that others should be allowed to follow in their wake. Have we begun to be alert to those things?
	I shall be very brief, as it is important that a diversity of people contribute. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has not been selected for debate but, like the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), I hope that its sentiment is accepted. This debate should not be only about women, or people from black and ethnic minorities, or disabled people. It should also be about gay people and young and older people, and about having a diverse Parliament. Unless we see that in the broad spectrum, we are not fulfilling Parliament's expectations of us.
	I join those who say that the Speaker's Conference is significant and welcome, and I hope that it is as groundbreaking as many of us hope and want it to be. It is urgent that we change. By electing Barack Obama, America showed what can be done if politics is opened up. It showed how more people—young people and those who have never voted—can be engaged in voting. We need people to look at Parliament and say, "I could be there, there are people like me there." That is the difference that it makes when there are young people and old people, as well as able bodied people and ones with disabilities, and so on.
	I shall end with two final points. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who chairs an organisation in our party called the campaign for gender balance. Like the rest of us, she has worked to make sure that we do not just sit passively by and let selections happen. At the last general election, our party doubled from five to 10 the number of women we have here. For the first time, in most of the seats that we hold where Members are standing down—and I think that there are six of them—most of people selected to take over are women. We have to work at these matters all the time, as nothing happens automatically. That is why we need to look at the broader canvas.
	Like my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), I support the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East, which has been used by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in certain circumstances positive action has to be taken, and that positive discrimination should be adopted for a limited period, because one sometimes has to break the glass to make the breakthrough. That does not always happen unless really dramatic action is taken to make it happen.
	My final point is an obvious one. I know that people bristle when this is mentioned, but we have to look at the fact that our electoral system militates against representativeness. I am not a theological purist for the single transferable vote. That is not where I come from, but I know that a proportional system of election such as operates in other Parliaments in this country and elsewhere provides a better balance of representation. That has to be on the agenda for us to discuss, and it is clearly included in the remit of the motion.
	I hope that no one will have any no-go areas in this debate. I hope that all of us will go into it with open minds and be willing to look at all options. I believe that the wish of the Leader of the House and of many of the rest of us is that, when we finish our duties in this place, we leave it as somewhere that looks, feels and sounds like Britain. I think that Parliament will make much better decisions as a result, because the mix that is Britain will be contributing to them.

Diane Abbott: In the past few days, I have had the privilege of being in the United States. I cannot stress enough to the House how the election of Barack Obama has electrified ordinary people there—I mean not only black people, but Hispanics and white people. They have been electrified and reassured that the system and democracy work. Increasing representation for ethnic minorities and women is not just for the benefit of the individuals who might get a parliamentary seat but for the benefit of the political process—to make it look like a living and real thing to our electorate.
	We hear a lot of talk about "positive discrimination". Having debated this issue over 21 years, I deplore that term, because it implies that we are taking under-qualified people and making them Members of Parliament. I prefer the phrase "positive action", because that is what I want to do—to tap the talent and ability of the qualified persons out there and bring them in here to enhance our democracy.
	A few weeks after I was first elected 21 years ago, I was at a meeting in my constituency where I met a woman I had never met before who looked at me and said, "When I saw that you were elected as a Member of Parliament, I felt big." What she meant was that she felt enhanced, she felt part of civil society, she felt proud, and she could see the possibilities for her children. It is easy for this to dissolve into party political bickering and point scoring, but there are so many people out there in our constituencies who want to be able to look at the House and know that it offers a promise of hope and advancement and a future for their children.
	I hope that the Speaker's Conference, in which I hope to play a part, will come up with an outcome that means, just as the election of Barack Obama means that many millions of American children of different colours and classes can aspire, that our children, in all our constituencies, and whatever their colours, religions or races, feel able to aspire, too.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered, ,
	That—
	(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Speaker's Conference which shall consist of the Speaker, who shall be chairman, and up to 17 other Members appointed by the Speaker one of whom shall be vice-chairman;
	(2) The Conference shall consider and make recommendations for rectifying the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large; and may agree to consider other associated matters;
	(3) Notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the Conference shall conduct its proceedings in such manner, and have such of those powers which the House may delegate to select committees, as the Speaker shall determine;
	(4) The Conference shall have power to report from time to time;
	(5) The quorum of the Conference shall be five;
	(6) This order shall have effect until the end of the current Parliament.

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2008 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution to the fund.
	The House of Commons Members' Fund is, in essence, a benevolent fund for former Members and their dependants who have fallen on hard times and need financial assistance. That is a function that a good many employers carry out as part of their social responsibilities, and it is right that this House should do likewise. The fund currently has around 90 beneficiaries, a few of whom are former Members, mostly very elderly, although the majority of beneficiaries are their surviving widows and other dependants. The motion concerning appropriation is brought forward every year in line with legislative requirements, and it enables the trustees to continue making awards to ex-Members and their dependants, having regard to individual circumstances.
	The fund is governed by a variety of Acts of immense complexity that stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts payable. Some payments are known as "as of right" payments—a rather misleading term, since there is no particular legal right attached to them. "As of right" beneficiaries are such because they are not entitled to a parliamentary pension because they left the House before 1964 or are widows or widowers of former Members who have a parliamentary contributory pension fund benefit below the current specified level, and the fund makes up the difference. The other category of payments comprises those awarded at the trustees' discretion. Discretionary payments can be recurring to improve a person's standard of living, but they are more usually one-off grants to improve the quality of life and meet a particular need. The average value of the recurring payments is about £2,000 per annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year, with an average value of only about £5,000. Relatively small sums can make a great difference in some circumstances. I commend the motion to the House.
	Let me take this opportunity to mention the review of the fund. As some hon. Members will be aware, an extensive review has been completed, and conclusions have been reached and endorsed by the trustees and the Members Estimate Committee. Implementation of the changes would, however, require changes to primary legislation. If new legislation is passed in line with the conclusions of the review, we will do away with the need for a Treasury contribution into the fund and for the annual appropriation motion. The review also recommended that "as of right" grants to former Members and spouses of deceased former Members paid under the House of Commons Members' Fund be increased from the very meagre current level of £2,924 to £5,000 per annum for a former Member and from £1,827 to £3,125 per annum for widows.
	Following discussions with the Leader of the House, it has been agreed that the most appropriate way of increasing the grants is by way of the trustees exercising their discretion. The trustees will be meeting tomorrow to discuss and, I hope, agree the most appropriate method for the recommended increase to grants made under the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, and the way in which it should be applied.

David Lammy: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I have met representatives of the PRS, and agreed with them that there will be a code of practice to deal with complaints from individual users. The PRS will consult publicly on the code by the end of the year. That is a start, but I believe that more needs to be done. I am well aware that there must be an independent body to review complaints in a system of this kind. It cannot be right, in 2008, for there to be only an internal adjudication process within a single body, and I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that, in that respect, action is in hand.
	As the new intellectual property Minister, I am encountering many new and interesting challenges, one of which is the need to ensure that intellectual property rights are properly understood and valued by those who live by and from the system. I have heard much in the debate, from my hon. Friend and others, that gives food for thought. I want it to be understood that I do not take these issues lightly, and will reflect seriously on the points that have been made. I consider it important—indeed, essential—to the protection of intellectual property for licensing schemes to command the respect of the entire community, and for no process to undermine the effort that our musicians make because it is seen to be harsh or unfair.
	I have asked the PRS to reflect on the breadth, as it were, of those whom they approach in seeking licences. Clearly it is not great if someone understands the process for the first time only because a significant amount is being sought from them. There are issues of public education, but beyond that there are issues of proper judicial process. I shall explore those issues further over the weeks and months ahead.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Nine o'clock.